Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Stumbled onto this on youtube


83 replies to this topic

#26
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 34,677 posts

I'm fairly strict on copyright myself.  If anything, I'd restrict it even further to close the "Fair Use" loopholes that YouTubers use to justify showing half a movie just because they talk over some of it.  The "free advertising" argument and all the rest are really self-serving nonsense from a handful of people who want to keep their channels anyway.
 
Personally, I'd like to make copyright intact for truly important pieces of art more or less indefinitely.  I mean, it'll be great when, say, the Marx Brothers movies make their way so that anyone could see them at any time and maybe they can get new life and a few more people can appreciate them.  Truth be told, the financial value for most movies under copyright is minimal enough that the value to the holders far outweighs the value to the public and even to the artists themselves in keeping them covered.  I mean, would it benefit Jane Austen if I couldn't go to Gutenberg.org and read Mansfield Park whenever I wanted because some publishing house has kept the rights under lock and key?  It may not hurt Pride and Prejudice much, but it would make her less popular work much less accessible.
 
On the other hand, it won't be so many years until films like Snow White, The Wizard of Oz, or Gone With the Wind enter public domain themselves.  These movies still hold fairly significant value and it doesn't hurt the public or the artists because the works haven't dimmed with the neglect of their rightsholders keeping them just for the sake of it.  In fact, they continue to receive corporate backing in order to keep them fresh in the public's mind.  Same thing goes with literature.  The first version of the Hobbit will fall into public domain around the same time as those movies with Animal Farm not far behind.  The Great Gatsby continues to do better than most modern books, but will go into public domain in just a couple of years.
 
For that reason, I would suggest that copyright protection be continue to be extendable, but for the fee to become increasingly prohibitive as time goes on.  Classics that still contain significant value and that remain in print can remain in private hands but the forgotten classics can re-enter the world to see if they can find a new audience.


I think it could be based on application. If a studio is just churning out new efitions of an old movie, and anyone involved in making it is long dead, that should go public domain.

But if somebody is actively using IP in new ways-- like say how DC continues to evolve and make new and original Batman stories, they should be able to extend copyright.

#27
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 34,677 posts

I'm not very fond of intellectual property. I'm more of a free-exchange-of-ideas kind of person.


I know you're anti-capitalism, so I get it. And as a petson that went to art school, I almost agree with it.

But when you see creative types going to the poor house while others cash in on their ideas it hardly seems fair. As long as we live in a capitalist society, which isn't going to change, to take the creative work of others for your own gain is crap.
  • Kyrian +1 this

#28
Odine

Odine

    Member

  • Supporters
  • 2,308 posts

I'm not very fond of intellectual property. I'm more of a free-exchange-of-ideas kind of person.


As an artist, i couldn't disagree more.
  • Kyrian +1 this

#29
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

 

I think it could be based on application. If a studio is just churning out new efitions of an old movie, and anyone involved in making it is long dead, that should go public domain.

But if somebody is actively using IP in new ways-- like say how DC continues to evolve and make new and original Batman stories, they should be able to extend copyright.

 

I'm not so worried about that.  My understanding is that as far as new and original Batman stories and merchandise, DC is already covered by trademark.  The question would really be whether Detective Comics #27 could enter public domain which is a lesser issue (though it would become more tangled as an increasing portion of the DC universe enters public domain).  Same with Mickey after Steamboat Willie enters public domain.  Warner Bros. won't be able to turn around and make a series of Bugs and Mickey shorts.  As long as you think of Batman when you think of DC and DC when you think of Batman, the trademark is pretty much good forever.

 

So we pretty much are talking about new editions and the other revenue streams.  Which is why I was distinguishing more based on value than anything else.  Might I be willing to grant an extension of copyright on Detective Comics #27?  Sure.  Should it be extended for the racist Batman serial they made during WWII?  Different story altogether.


  • Tank +1 this

#30
El Chalupacabra

El Chalupacabra

    Member

  • Supporters
  • 8,846 posts

I'm fairly strict on copyright myself.  If anything, I'd restrict it even further to close the "Fair Use" loopholes that YouTubers use to justify showing half a movie just because they talk over some of it.  The "free advertising" argument and all the rest are really self-serving nonsense from a handful of people who want to keep their channels anyway.

 

Personally, I'd like to make copyright intact for truly important pieces of art more or less indefinitely.  I mean, it'll be great when, say, the Marx Brothers movies make their way so that anyone could see them at any time and maybe they can get new life and a few more people can appreciate them.  Truth be told, the financial value for most movies under copyright is minimal enough that the value to the holders far outweighs the value to the public and even to the artists themselves in keeping them covered.  I mean, would it benefit Jane Austen if I couldn't go to Gutenberg.org and read Mansfield Park whenever I wanted because some publishing house has kept the rights under lock and key?  It may not hurt Pride and Prejudice much, but it would make her less popular work much less accessible.

 

On the other hand, it won't be so many years until films like Snow White, The Wizard of Oz, or Gone With the Wind enter public domain themselves.  These movies still hold fairly significant value and it doesn't hurt the public or the artists because the works haven't dimmed with the neglect of their rightsholders keeping them just for the sake of it.  In fact, they continue to receive corporate backing in order to keep them fresh in the public's mind.  Same thing goes with literature.  The first version of the Hobbit will fall into public domain around the same time as those movies with Animal Farm not far behind.  The Great Gatsby continues to do better than most modern books, but will go into public domain in just a couple of years.

 

For that reason, I would suggest that copyright protection be continue to be extendable, but for the fee to become increasingly prohibitive as time goes on.  Classics that still contain significant value and that remain in print can remain in private hands but the forgotten classics can re-enter the world to see if they can find a new audience.

I can understand bonafide copyright infringement occurring in fan films (the Axanar guy comes to mind...even though I liked the promo video, even I have to admit that crossed the line), but circling back to this Vader: Shards of the Past youtube video in particular, this guy specifically sought out guidance from LFL on what he could or could not do, and followed the rules.  If LFL is cool with it, what business is it of yours or anyone else's?

 

Also, if you want to talk about copyright infringement, I think there are better cases to be made to focus on what is going on in Asia, China in particular, with everything from unauthorized technology appropriation (hardware and software), stealing of intellectual property, hacking and cyber terrorism, video and music piracy, to trademark infringement.  Cooperations are hemorrhaging cash as a result of what is going on overseas. 

 

Beating up some pathetic youtuber for fair use because he is using a still photo from ROTS in a video he made in his mom's basement is sort of a waste of time and energy.   That costs LFL absolutely no money, and indeed it is actually a form of free promotion, so LFL should be thanking said youtuber.  Unless you are a complete and absolute kill joy, that is.  



#31
Zerimar Nyliram

Zerimar Nyliram

    Dude

  • Member
  • 3,153 posts

Congratulations, you fail at capitalism.

Hahaha! Indeed. Listen, I have studied capitalism for a decade, and what you think is capitalism is not capitalism. Trust me.



#32
Zerimar Nyliram

Zerimar Nyliram

    Dude

  • Member
  • 3,153 posts

 

I'm not very fond of intellectual property. I'm more of a free-exchange-of-ideas kind of person.


I know you're anti-capitalism, so I get it. 

 

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatttttttttttttttttttttttttt?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Hi, I'm John. Have we met?



#33
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

 

I can understand bonafide copyright infringement occurring in fan films (the Axanar guy comes to mind...even though I liked the promo video, even I have to admit that crossed the line), but circling back to this Vader: Shards of the Past youtube video in particular, this guy specifically sought out guidance from LFL on what he could or could not do, and followed the rules.  If LFL is cool with it, what business is it of yours or anyone else's?

 

I don't believe anyone in the discussion ever suggested otherwise.  The question was more along the lines of whether they're obligated to be cool with it.

 

I will say that overseas piracy does not absolve domestic copyright infringement any more than "Everyone else is speeding" works on a cop.

 

Hahaha! Indeed. Listen, I have studied capitalism for a decade, and what you think is capitalism is not capitalism. Trust me.

 

Very well.  Explain where the capital comes from without the return on investment.  Somehow I doubt that Kickstarter is all you need.



#34
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 34,677 posts

I'm not very fond of intellectual property. I'm more of a free-exchange-of-ideas kind of person.


I know you're anti-capitalism, so I get it.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatttttttttttttttttttttttttt?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Hi, I'm John. Have we met?


Anarchy supports capitalism?!

#35
El Chalupacabra

El Chalupacabra

    Member

  • Supporters
  • 8,846 posts

 

 

I can understand bonafide copyright infringement occurring in fan films (the Axanar guy comes to mind...even though I liked the promo video, even I have to admit that crossed the line), but circling back to this Vader: Shards of the Past youtube video in particular, this guy specifically sought out guidance from LFL on what he could or could not do, and followed the rules.  If LFL is cool with it, what business is it of yours or anyone else's?

 

I don't believe anyone in the discussion ever suggested otherwise.  The question was more along the lines of whether they're obligated to be cool with it.

 

I will say that overseas piracy does not absolve domestic copyright infringement any more than "Everyone else is speeding" works on a cop.

 

 

 

I think you may have misunderstood my meaning. I was not attempting to justify cases of piracy because it is going on in China, but rather saying the lone youtuber using still photos in a video is complying with fair use, and there are bigger fish to fry with overseas piracy.  Youtube is pretty proactive with making sure youtubers don't display half a movie, and pull videos down when it does happen, these days.  Maybe you have seen that in the past, but kind of hard to get away with it now.  

 

And yeah, the owner of an IP is not obligated to allow fan films from a legal standpoint, nor should fans expect it,  but it is good business to allow fan films, so long as guide lines are set by the owner and followed by the fan film maker. In the case of this Star Wars Theory guy, that is a good example of what should happen.  The Axanar guy is a good example of effing it up for every other fan film maker because CBS Paramount was pretty hands off until Axanar.  Now, there are strict requirements that need to be followed, thanks to the Axanar mess.    



#36
Zerimar Nyliram

Zerimar Nyliram

    Dude

  • Member
  • 3,153 posts

 

 

 

I'm not very fond of intellectual property. I'm more of a free-exchange-of-ideas kind of person.


I know you're anti-capitalism, so I get it.

 

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatttttttttttttttttttttttttt?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Hi, I'm John. Have we met?

 


Anarchy supports capitalism?!

 

Uh, yeah, that's why it's called anarcho-capitalism.



#37
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 34,677 posts
I told you to make a thread and educate me!

#38
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

Disney claimed the video and are monetizing it for themselves.  Guy's salty about it.

 

At least they didn't just take it down.

 

Edit:  In the video itself he says that LucasFilm told him he couldn't crowdfund the project.  So it does sound like he violated their rules.



#39
El Chalupacabra

El Chalupacabra

    Member

  • Supporters
  • 8,846 posts

Disney claimed the video and are monetizing it for themselves.  Guy's salty about it.

 

At least they didn't just take it down.

 

Edit:  In the video itself he says that LucasFilm told him he couldn't crowdfund the project.  So it does sound like he violated their rules.

My takeaway from that video was that LFL approved the video, but Disney is the one forcing the ads. Seems he should have cleared it through LFL and Disney, but only cleared it through LFL.   He sounds pissed because they are now making money off of something he created, but he went into this knowing he couldn't make money off it.  I can understand being bitter, but that's just how corporations do.  The film industry will protect itself from the competition, but in a way they kind of have to because if every youtuber decided to make money off of Star Wars fan films (not that Disney's legal department would sit back and let it happen), then that would dilute the Star Wars brand.  Their brand.   He's correct in that Disney doesn't need the money, but they have a right to it, too.   He doesn't own Star Wars, after all.  

 

Now I understand if he is butt hurt over that because he probably didn't see that coming. But if he does make an episode 2, and Disney does the same thing, or even worse, sues him, then he kind of will have brought it on himself.



#40
Zerimar Nyliram

Zerimar Nyliram

    Dude

  • Member
  • 3,153 posts

Is it starting to become clear why I think intellectual property is a ridiculous concept?



#41
Zerimar Nyliram

Zerimar Nyliram

    Dude

  • Member
  • 3,153 posts

 

 

Hahaha! Indeed. Listen, I have studied capitalism for a decade, and what you think is capitalism is not capitalism. Trust me.

 

Very well.  Explain where the capital comes from without the return on investment.  Somehow I doubt that Kickstarter is all you need.

 

Sorry, didn't see your comment before. Well, it has been fully articulated to death (by capitalists), so I feel no need to reinvent the wheel here. A simple Google search will yield the results you seek. I'll do some of the work for you and post some videos to get you started:







Here are some long ones. Watch them when you've got some time:



 

 



#42
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts
Well, it has been fully articulated to death (by capitalists), so I feel no need to reinvent the wheel here.

 

I'm not interested in your passing off several videos as an answer.

 

Please explain for yourself where the capital will come from to make these movies without a return on investment.

 

 

 

Is it starting to become clear why I think intellectual property is a ridiculous concept?

 

Not at all.  This seems a fair compromise.



#43
Zerimar Nyliram

Zerimar Nyliram

    Dude

  • Member
  • 3,153 posts

Dude, I'm tired and busy, and until I have more spare time, that's all you're getting. Really, I did work on something you can easily research yourself.



#44
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

Dude, I'm tired and busy, and...

...don't have an answer.

 

If you've truly studied this for a decade and the answer is simple if I'd just do my homework, then it should be easy for you.  Tell me where the capital will come from.



#45
Zerimar Nyliram

Zerimar Nyliram

    Dude

  • Member
  • 3,153 posts

No, serious, I don't mean to be blunt, but you are not a priority. Even as I type this, having only just gotten home thirty minutes ago, believe me, you are the last thing on my list.

How about you watch just a single video I've posted? I'd go with the second from the top, personally. It's not very long. Better yet, Google the answer yourself. Learn the same way I did.




On-topic: Star Wars Theory's update posted today is fantastic. The decision he's make shows what kind of person he is.



#46
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

On-topic: Star Wars Theory's update posted today is fantastic. The decision he's make shows what kind of person he is.

 

While I'm glad he's not attacking anyone anymore, his poor behavior started a hate train and has already done damage to other people.  You don't get to pretend to be the better person after that.  Actually, there's been a lot of that going around these days, but that's a discussion for another time.

 

He should have shrugged it off as a non-event in the first place.  It wasn't even hurting him.

 

No, serious, I don't mean to be blunt, but you are not a priority.

 

Again, it surely can't be difficult.  I'll happily wait for as long as it will take for you to explain this incredibly simple concept.

 

How about you watch just a single video I've posted?

 

Not interested.  I'm not talking to YouTube creators at the moment.  I'm talking to you.



#47
Dark Wader

Dark Wader

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,421 posts
Today Disney/Lucasfilm revoked Warner Chappells copyright against the video.

#48
Poe Dameron

Poe Dameron

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,485 posts

That's a shame.  The guy was totally in the wrong on this.



#49
El Chalupacabra

El Chalupacabra

    Member

  • Supporters
  • 8,846 posts

Disney and the rest of their companies are in the legal right, sure.  I stand by my previous post.  

 

But this is really scummy and petty.  And man, they must feel really threatened by this and other fan films that actually do a better job of capturing the spirit of George Lucas's Star Wars era than what Disney Star Wars has done.  I hope this becomes a PR nightmare for them, and affects Episode 9's box office.   I will not be watching Ep 9, the Mandalorian or anything else by Disney.  

 

I am officially done with any new "official" Star Wars as long as Disney owns it.



#50
Dark Wader

Dark Wader

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,421 posts

They revoked the copyright claim from the other company - as in it wasn't Disney that tried to monetize the video in the first place. So they're in essence supporting the fan film. 





Reply to this topic